Mere Violation Of Bail Condition Not Enough To Cancel Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a mere violation of a bail condition would not be enough to cancel bail and there must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted.While quashing the bail condition and order cancelling bail in an NDPS case, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, “The only condition that can be imposed is that...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a mere violation of a bail condition would not be enough to cancel bail and there must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted.
While quashing the bail condition and order cancelling bail in an NDPS case, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, “The only condition that can be imposed is that the Investigating Agency/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail which would be adjudicated upon in accordance with law. In fact, bail once granted cannot be cancelled automatically and in a mechanical manner. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted.”
The bench further clarified that a mere violation of the bail conditions would not be sufficient to cancel the bail. The Court must be satisfied that it is necessary to cancel the same keeping in view various factors, it added.
These observations were made while hearing a plea filed under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside the bail condition passed by ASJ, Faridabad wherein it stated that in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of a similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice.
The accused Rajiya was booked under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for having been found in possession of 1.5 kg of contraband.
Thereafter in two other FIRs lodged in the NDPS Act, the name of the accused came in the disclosure statement and she was arrayed as an accused again.
An application was moved by the prosecution for cancellation of bail granted to Rajiya on the ground that she had subsequently been found to have been involved in another FIR.
Accordingly, the bail granted to her was cancelled on the ground that there was a condition for automatic cancellation of bail in the order.
Considering the submissions, reliance was placed upon the Kerala High Court in the case of Godson Versus State of Kerala, [2022(3) Crimes 191] wherein the condition was imposed by the Court that bail will be cancelled if allegations of commission of offence will be found during the bail.
The Kerala High Court said, “In my view, merely because of the reason that such a condition was imposed while granting bail to the accused, that would not result in the cancellation of bail automatically. This is particularly because, since the order of cancellation of bail is something that affects the personal liberty of a person, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless there are reasons justifying or warranting such an order, the bail already granted cannot be cancelled.”
It further added, “…Therefore, while considering an application to cancel the bail on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions, the court has to consider the question whether the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or as to whether it affects the trial of the case in which the accused is implicated.”
Reference was also made to Abdul Lathif @ Shokkari Lathif Versus State of Kerala, [CRL. MC No.6677 of 2022], in which it was held that, “…even in a case where the accused has committed a crime while on bail, the court has to consider whether crime is of such grave nature that it amounts to a supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail. For that, there has to be a preliminary assessment of the allegations with respect to the subsequent crime.”
A perusal of the judgments referred to hereinabove would show that no condition for the automatic cancellation of bail can be imposed while granting bail. The only condition that can be imposed is that the Investigating Agency/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail which would be adjudicated upon in accordance with law, the bench said.
The Court further opined that the Court must be satisfied that it is necessary to cancel the same keeping in view various factors.
Justice Bedi noted that in the instant case, the bail had been cancelled automatically without examining any circumstances whatsoever one of which would have been that in the two other cases registered against the petitioner, she had been granted the concession of bail prior to her bail being cancelled in the instant case.
In light of the above, while setting aside the condition imposed in the bail order, the Court granted the concession of Bail to the accused.
Appearance: Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajiv Goel, DAG for Haryana.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 289
Title: Rajiya v. State of Haryana